"Flash" happenings

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

The idea of a "flash mob" scares the heck out of me. The world has shrunk to the point now that what a group of people do on one side of the planet could easily inspire others to do the same on the other side. Time zones really don't matter anymore. I hate to say it but what's happening in a certain country right now may someday be a global thing. It's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. It's not just pillow fights anymore. I think this was predicted in a science fiction movie/novel. We are one world united by technology. The question is: are we smart enough to handle it?

[Buttercup]

Scares me too.

There have been incidents of ganging up on people (usually walking alone) and beating them in Las Vegas. :( Punks text each other; they run for the target.

We prefer "the great outdoors" for our getaways. Chances are you won't get targeted by a flash mob...

[Swift]

The question is: are we smart enough to handle it?
Of course not. But I often doubt humans are smart enough to handle fire and the wheel. (I am only 57% kidding)

Flash mobs don't scare me in the least. Most have actually been very benign or very cool. For example, there was one in Cleveland around Christmas 2010 that gathered to sing the Hallelujah Chorus. YouTube video (www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IGILBxJBJI)

Sure, people abuse technology of all sorts for all kinds of bad things. If you knew how much moderator time was spent killing spammers, you'd suggest we shutdown BAUT.

The riots in London have really nothing to do with flash mobs or technology, in that riots have happened for a heck of a lot longer than the Internet, or even electricity (as a technology) has been around.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

I guess my question should be: how far can viral thinking spread and to what effect? If one person texted drink sasparilla to a bunch of people and they did the same...well you'd have a bunch of people all over the world drinking sasparilla. What if one angry person texted to a bunch of people that they should burn all XYZ corporate holdings worldwide and let's say that tens of thousands followed this viral thinking... when do the brakes (ie. common sense)fail?

[NEOWatcher]

I guess my question should be: how far can viral thinking spread and to what effect?
That's the concern that I have.
You have some whiner on youtube complaining about something that most people go through on a regular basis, and they are treated like kings, while everyone else still suffers.

Then; others see this and try to top it whether they are the cause or not.

I see it as vigilanteism. "I don't care what the process is, I want my satisfaction and I want it now".

And when the story finally gets revealed, everyone is already convinced of the so-called injustice.

We have a lady recently convicted of multiple crimes because she "simply wanted a better education for her children". The statement generated enough sympathy that the governor even got involved in getting the convictions (and records) reversed. Then the dirt on her really started to come out.

But; as Swift pointed out, there is a good side to this too.
(by the way Swift, to seeked (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/110748-Flash-Mobs))

[Fazor]

'Group think' is a phenomenon I'd been interested in since we discussed it in the course of my law enforcement classes. It goes beyond mob behavior; the cases that really caught my attention were cases of 'mobs' or groups of people not doing something that you'd expect them to do. There was a woman in NYC who was mugged and stabbed to death while a few dozen people watched, and no body did anything to stop it or even called the police until after the incident was over.

There was another person in (Detroit?) who was pulled from their car during a road-rage related incident in the midst of a rush-hour traffic jam. Traffic was stopped, and motorists looked on while this person was beaten and ultimately thrown to their death off the bridge, and nobody stepped in to help.

'Mob mentality' isn't much different. People seem to shut off their brains in the presence of other people. But in order for that to happen, I think that people need to be physically gathered together. This "Tweet: #Lets Go Loot Milburry Street! @Riots! Woo!" thing is different, IMHO. These are people who want to do something illegal, are premeditating their actions, and using excuses (if they even bother to give any) to proclaim their actions are noble or necessary.

While I find that depressingly despicable, I don't think it'll ever catch on in a wide-spread manner. Though, humanity never fails to surprise me. Enough people out there with enough pent up rage/violence/whatever, and maybe a single twitter hastag could spark world-wide violence and destruction. *shrug*

[Swift]

<snip>

While I find that depressingly despicable, I don't think it'll ever catch on in a wide-spread manner. Though, humanity never fails to surprise me. Enough people out there with enough pent up rage/violence/whatever, and maybe a single twitter hastag could spark world-wide violence and destruction. *shrug*
Very good post Fazor. The flip side of your last sentence is that while a tweet might be enough to set off some certain small percentage of the population, it is a small percentage. The riots in London are a tiny fraction of a percentage of the population. The vast majority of people know what is right and what is wrong and are not going to be influenced by something on Twitter or YouTube. But the tiny bad percentage get all the headlines.

I go back to my main point from my first post. Riots are nothing new. I grew up in the 1960s and well remember the 1968 riots after MLK was killed. There were the riots in LA in 1992. And those are only two examples. And all of that predates the Internet.

Frankly, equating the riots in London to Flash Mobs gathering in Antwerp to dance to the Sound of Music (google it if you are interested) is silly and unfair.

By the way, if it isn't obvious, I like Flash Mobs, and in checking some stuff, I found The Top 7 Flash Mobs (http://socialtimes.com/top-7-flash-mobs-of-all-time_b12242) from socialtimes.com.

[Fazor]

The flip side of your last sentence is that while a tweet might be enough to set off some certain small percentage of the population, it is a small percentage.

Unfortunately, it's been shown time and time again that a small percentage of people can cause huge problems for the rest of the population at large. I wonder how much of these things is this weird desire to control other people that many seem to have.

"We might be but one small group, but watch as we bring the whole city to it's knees!"

True power isn't the ability to use violence to control others. Anyone can do that. True power is having the ability to influence others without having to do so by force.

[Moose]

'Group think' is a phenomenon I'd been interested in since we discussed it in the course of my law enforcement classes. It goes beyond mob behavior; the cases that really caught my attention were cases of 'mobs' or groups of people not doing something that you'd expect them to do. There was a woman in NYC who was mugged and stabbed to death while a few dozen people watched, and no body did anything to stop it or even called the police until after the incident was over.

It may not have been _quite_ the whole story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#cite_note-4), apparently. It seems that the attacker ran off, then returned to finish the job. Most folks didn't hear or see him come back.


While Genovese's neighbors were vilified by the articles, "thirty-eight onlookers who did nothing" is a misconception. The New York Times article begins:

"For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens."

The lead is dramatic but factually inaccurate. None of the witnesses observed the attacks in their entirety. Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Most only heard portions of the incident without realizing its seriousness, a few saw only small portions of the initial assault, and no witnesses directly saw the final attack and rape in an exterior hallway, which resulted in Genovese's death.[1] Additionally, after the initial attack punctured her lungs (leading to her eventual death from asphyxiation), it is unlikely that she was able to scream at any volume.[19]

[Fazor]

Hmm. Well, scratch that example then. And I followed the link to the 'Bystander effect', but that doesn't actually seem to be linked to groups but rather people coming across situations that are so outside the norm that they hesitate to act.

I will say, we never learned all that other stuff about Kitty's attacker. Yikes, what a monster! I thought it was just a mugging.

[Solfe]

Hmm. Well, scratch that example then. And I followed the link to the 'Bystander effect', but that doesn't actually seem to be linked to groups but rather people coming across situations that are so outside the norm that they hesitate to act.

I think the bystander effect also ties into something about group dynamics. I wish I could remember the name of the concept... the idea is that people are slower to respond to threats in a group because they try to build a consensus. One of the examples was to place an individual in a room and make smoke come out a vent. The person left the room and got help immediately. If there was more than one person in the room, they have a conversation before acting. As social creatures we kind of stink at thinking.

[Fazor]

I think the bystander effect also ties into something about group dynamics. I wish I could remember the name of the concept... the idea is that people are slower to respond to threats in a group because they try to build a consensus. One of the examples was to place an individual in a room and make smoke come out a vent. The person left the room and got help immediately. If there was more than one person in the room, they have a conversation before acting. As social creatures we kind of stink at thinking.

Saw the same thing done with a classroom and a "janitor" that fakes being electrocuted while working on a light fixture in the hallway. Same result. One or two people tended to run and get help. A group of people did not.

The way it was explained to us is that, when there's a group of people, people tend to look around and see that no one else is acting. Fearing that they are the one who's misinterpreting what's going on, and that acting will make them look foolish, they fail to act. Unfortunately, that's the same reason no one else is acting.

I'm not so sure about it though. In my experience, there's usually at least one person who doesn't think about other people's perceptions and is willing to act solely based on what they think they should do (something most of us would claim that we'd do anyway.) On a personal level, I see both sides. I'm definitely the kind of person who would worry that no one else is taking action, so there must be a reason, and if I act I might looks stupid.

On the other hand, I've also had experience and training with responding to emergency situations. Fortunately I've never really been tested, but the few "serious" situations I've been in, the instinct to act overtook any of the other instincts. It's hard to say what I'd do if really tested though, and I tend to think I'd fall to the same effect! The only thing that *might* save me is that I'm familiar with the effect, but in the "heat of the moment", who knows if I'd actually rationalize it.

Anyway, yes. What you describe is more what I had in mind with my post IRT the riots, which is really what this thread is about. Group dynamics (I call it "group think", but google tells me that's a term used for something else.) and "mob rule". When in large groups, we tend to take ques for action or inaction from those around us. I think that's much more of an influence in riot situations than something like social media and global communications.

ETA: Oh wow. That's not the most coherent post I've ever submitted. Sorry; didn't get to eat today. It's like one of those Snickers commercials. I apologize for the sloppiness!

[Swift]

With regard to the bystander effect, I have also personally witnessed, on several occasions, the exact opposite - multiple bystanders coming to the aid of someone.

One was in Providence, RI when I lived there. I was waiting at a street corner for the light to change. There was a car stopped at the light and suddenly a woman got out of the passenger side of the car and the driver, a man, got out (I assume after putting the car in park) and tried to physically drag her back into the car, with her screaming and resisting. I had happened to see a police car about a block away, and ran to get the officier. When he and I returned, multiple other bystanders were around the car. I let the cop straighten the whole thing out.

I suspect we hear a lot more about the cases of bad group dynamics then we hear about the good ones.

[Fazor]

I suspect we hear a lot more about the cases of bad group dynamics then we hear about the good ones.

Well, it's just that it's more complicated than simply being in a group. Otherwise, war would be easy. Just wait until the opposing army masses, then send a single guy in to kill the guy in charge. No one would act because they're in a group. :)

[Swift]

I wonder if anyone has done a Flashdance flash mob? Or had a flash mob based on this comic book character (http://www.dccomics.com/media/product/3/8/3871_400x600.jpg)? :)

[Van Rijn]

I think this was predicted in a science fiction movie/novel.


I suspect you're thinking of Larry Niven's "Flash Crowd" story. Niven had a number of stories exploring the effects of practical and inexpensive teleportation. In the stories, people would step into something that looked a bit like a telephone booth, enter a number for another booth anywhere on Earth, and they would teleported instantly to the booth they dialed. So, in the Flash Crowd story, you'd have situations where people all over the world would hear of something that interested them and teleport there, turning minor events into major ones, sometimes leading to riots. Today's flash mobs are very similar to his idea, though his teleport booth flash crowds would be much more extreme because of the cheap, instant transportation.

[HenrikOlsen]

The riots in London have really nothing to do with flash mobs or technology, in that riots have happened for a heck of a lot longer than the Internet, or even electricity (as a technology) has been around.
I think it's the flash-mob-style blackberry-coordinated organised looting raids he was talking about, where a neighborhood is hit by what's essentially a swam of human locusts cleaning out all accessible shops on one go.


The interesting parallel to "Flash Crowd" is that that one involved organised criminals using the flash crowd phenomenon to pick pocketing, while the flash mob technology of organizing coordinated events is being used in England to coordinate massive organized looting attacks.

[Solfe]

I use my phone to detect people in the store where I work. I hit scan on the bluetooth and wifi and if one is there, my phone vibrates. The scan can last up to 5 minutes, but since it isn't meant for this purpose, it only runs that limited time.

I wonder how long until the police simply scan the bandwidth to find who is in range and record that info?

[jokergirl]

The thing with flashmobs, Anonymous and so on is that while yes, a few individuals suddenly get great power, it is still hard to convince a random group of strangers to do something if they do not already feel like it.
Anonymous *would* be a scary force in the hands of anyone using them for evil, but it will never be simply because of the nature of its (non-)organisation. They do not actually have a "group" mentality in the way that a subculture has a group mentality where they will follow peer pressure. Or rather, an appeal to peer pressure will fail if even a few do not agree to it.

To quote a friend who put it a bit more poignant: "They will never do things for evil because they are too busy doing things for the lulz."

;)

[DoggerDan]

The idea of a "flash mob" scares the heck out of me. The world has shrunk to the point now that what a group of people do on one side of the planet could easily inspire others to do the same on the other side. Time zones really don't matter anymore. I hate to say it but what's happening in a certain country right now may someday be a global thing. It's a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. It's not just pillow fights anymore. I think this was predicted in a science fiction movie/novel. We are one world united by technology. The question is: are we smart enough to handle it?

This effect only works on largely homogeneous populations whose culture and morals allow for this sort of thing. There are small segments in the U.S., primarily inner cities, where such rioting could, and occasionally has occurred. I can't see it occurring in suburbia, though. I think the neighbors would ban together and help one another rather than simply degenerate into riots. If political action did need to happen, most of the folks throughout America have enough savvy to work within the system to either effect the needed changes or eject the politicians blocking it.

[Solfe]

Ah, suburbia. Its sort of like 15 seconds of an Enya song on autorepeat.

[jokergirl]

Ah, suburbia. Its sort of like 15 seconds of an Enya song on autorepeat.

How do you know what I just have in my head? :(

[grapes]

I use my phone to detect people in the store where I work. I hit scan on the bluetooth and wifi and if one is there, my phone vibrates. The scan can last up to 5 minutes, but since it isn't meant for this purpose, it only runs that limited time. Interesting. How big is the store?